Skip to comments.Movie About Lt. Col. Terry Lakin's Battle To Get Obama's Birth Certificate Released In The Works
Posted on 02/13/2013 2:25:37 PM PST by Cold Case Posse Supporter
For Immediate Release 2/13/2013
There is substantial interest in creating a film adaptation of the Terry Lakin Story, "OFFICER'S OATH."
This is a poignant, heroic story that must not be forgotten, or falsely relegated to the "conspiracy theory" chapter in the annals of our national history.
Terry knowingly sacrificed his military career, endured a court-martial, and ultimately spent nearly half a year in Leavenworth Prison simply for standing up for the Constitution he pledged to uphold and defend. His story is detailed in the book "An Officer's Oath," which is recommended reading for anybody who reveres this country and the Constitution by which we were successfully governed for so many years.
Officer's Oath tells the sometimes harrowing, sometimes inspirational true story of Doctor and 17-year U.S. Army veteran, Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who sacrificed his distinguished military career--and his very freedom--to preserve the integrity of the United States Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at commandertaffy.com ...
There isn't such a thing.
Al Gore won a majority of the popular vote but he lost a majority of the Electoral vote. That is how George W. Bush was elected President in 2000.
2000 popular vote:
2000 Electoral vote
The page is unresponsive.
If the military evaded the issue it just makes me despise those “leaders” even more.
Joseph Stalin takes office. An officer requests clarification as to whether Joseph Stalin can Constitutionally act as President; the military leadership won’t do anything to get answers. The officer sacrifices his own career by disobeying orders in order to let his fellow brother-in-arms know how to proceed and the military leadership worms its way out to make sure that Joseph Stalin’s qualifications can never be adjudicated.
At best it is willful ignorance. Given the intelligence we have suggesting that the Sept 2008 run on the bank was a terrorist act to get Obama elected, that foreign Islamists funded Obama’s election (with the full knowledge of Obama, since it was only allowed because the security protocols were specifically DISABLED to allow this to happen - as well as Obama’s communications to the Egyptian ambassador in Jan 2010 suggesting that Obama was aware of who buttered his bread since he told the world Muslims to be patient with him; even though he had been in office a year he hadn’t yet pushed the Muslim agenda because he had to get Obamacare passed first....), that Obama has posted 2 forged BC’s in order to hide that his HI BC is non-valid, the proof of Selective Service forgery of his draft registration, etc...... these people known darn good and well that Obama is the equivalent of Joseph Stalin.
They are Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes: “I KNOW NOSSING!!!”
I’m sorry, Mr. Rogers, but at this point I have nothing but sorrow and disgust over the coup and the people who have enabled the coup. The very people who have sworn to protect us from this very thing have instead betrayed us all. They’ve trashed everything. Those in the military who adhere to the Constitution are being purged. Those who have shown themselves true in battle were first given pamphlets urging them to consider whether their loved ones would be better off if these wounded soldiers committed suicide... and now, lo and behold, we’re losing more military people to suicide than to anything else. And it’s not the traitors who are dying. It’s the good men. The true men. Our heroes sit on the top of a building in Benghazi painting targets for an armed drone that never comes because Obama the foreign enemy combatant in our White House, is getting his beauty rest so he can appear to the adoring fans in Las Vegas while a true hero dies alone, the only person willing to defend US personnel and allies there.
I don’t recognize this country any more. This is not America. If this is how Americans act then I’m ashamed to be called an American.
I don’t want to talk about it. This conversation is over.
The "popular vote" is only a point of interest, not a valid qualifier in a Presidential election. No government election authority can utilize it.
IOW, there is no such thing as a national election.
When I said he could file a lawsuit, I meant that he could file one in federal court. The court might or might not dismiss that case, but he was free to file it.
I am not surprised that he couldn't present that kind of evidence in the context of the court-martial. The purpose of the court-martial was to prosecute Lakin for refusing to follow orders. His desire to litigate the qualifications of the president is not inconsistent with his obligation to follow orders. He could have done both simultaneously. His mistake was that he thought he could give his desire to litigate priority over his obligation to follow orders. In other words, he was not at liberty to allow his litigation activities to disrupt his military duties. Our soldiers depend upon one another and there were soldiers who were depending on Lakin.
Nobody doubts that Lakin was genuinely interested in pursuing his constitutional theories, but he was required to do so in a manner that did not interfere with his continuing duties as a soldier. Until removed from office, Obama is the president and as such is the Commander in Chief.
A word on Joseph Stalin: If you have sufficient imagination to create in your mind a scenario in which Joseph Stalin was somehow able to convince a majority of voters (and their electors) that he was a natural born citizen and should be president, then you have sufficient imagination to finish that scenario such that Stalin takes the oath and serves as president until Congress removes him from office by impeachment. In the meantime, he would be the president and the Commander in Chief.
How would "an electoral system" subpoena records?
There are very specific rules which must be followed when subpoenaing records from another state. I'm not aware of any court case relating to Obama's eligibility in which a valid subpoena was issued to Hawaii and they refused to honor it, but I may have missed it. Which case are you referring to?
Well, there are still Obama side family members living, and (I think) Obama’s sister.
Of course getting that DNA would require Horatio Caine or Sidney Bristow.
I'll bet that most of our presidents never even had birth certificates or any of the kind of records you're talking about. I just don't believe that our Founding Fathers thought that any candidate would be required to produce a birth certificate. And, what difference does it make? You know now that any document that Hawaii produces is just used by some as further evidence to convince themselves that Obama must have been born in Kenya.
If a court ever permitted a litigant to try to prove that Obama was born in Kenya, it would be a very short trial. I mentioned before that even Obama has no knowledge about his own birth other than what he has learned from others. However, notwithstanding that fact, the rules of evidence permit Obama to competently testify regarding the circumstances of his own birth "even though [he] had no way of acquiring personal knowledge about that fact." Federal Rules of Evidence, Section 804(b)(4)(A). So, Obama can take the stand and testify that he was born in Hawaii.
Who can and will testify that he was not born in the United States?
How are you going to prove the paternity of this lady you’re trying to pass off as Obama’s sister? ;-)
26 states plus the District of Columbia have laws which require electors to vote for the candidate who wins a majority of that state’s popular vote. 24 states have no such restriction.
So it’s not IF a candidate wins the popular vote, it’s WHERE a candidate wins the popular vote. Saying that the popular vote is only a point of interest is a bit of an over-statement. It is determinative in 26 states plus the District of Columbia.
Saying that Barry Obama won two “landslide” victories with 67% of the Electors in 2008 and 62% of the Electors in 2012 greatly inflates the reality of his narrow popular vote victories. I’m not giving him that kind of a mandate.
Yeah, they’re not exactly a family...more like an unincorporated community of bastards.
But there seems to be a lot of them.
Perhaps because the SecDef was satisfied that Obama was the president? Thought that that was up to the voters and Congress and that they seemed to have made a decision? Doesn't matter. Doesn't have anything to do with the charge against Lakin.
But in any case, you haven't answered my question: what's the alternative? How does the military operate when any officer can refuse their orders because they doubt the president's eligibility? Do you really think that would work in practice? Can you answer that?
The answer is that the situation could have been avoided if the candidate had been properly screened when he announced.
It is not the fault of officers who question, it is the fault of the democrat party, the sec of state, the electoral college, the congress, the ussc, and indirectly, the media.
Officers who ask the question are acting honorably and standing by their vow to defend the constitution. Someone must stand up in the face of a complete system breakdown.
So you think the military can function if any officer is permitted to disobey orders because they question whether the president--the person voted for by the Electoral College, confirmed by Congress, and sworn in by the Chief Justice--was "properly screened" or not. Interesting.
It is up to the commander in chief to establish credibility. You wouldn’t follow orders if your commander was illigitemate. That’;s what nazis do. In the face of a system which has broken down why would ou participate in what is possibly one of the largest frauds in the history of the world.
How can you kill people under orders when you think the order has no legal or moral authority?
Here’s another thought on the way to bed.
If 1,000 or 5,000, or 10,000 officers had acted honorably in an obvious constitutional crisis, the questions would have been answered.
Having served in the USA Army in WWII and had my exposure to duties and obligations as a low level enlisted ‘servant’ overseas, I have formed a number of opinions on such cases as Lakin’s. First of all I believe Lakin’s oath as an officer is to the Constitution not to the POTUSA as it is/was for us lowly dregs of enlisted/drafted men. I accepted the burden of military law as did my brother who was killed on Okinawa. Secondly, I have come to believe there is a higher duty to the Nation and It’s body of laws and foundation than sheep like adherence to leader worship at any level especially when there are legitimate questions as to the leaders eligibility and history. Thirdly, I have tremendous respect for the service of all service persons but I will not submit/relinquish my duty as a member of this Nation’s society to any group, including any military service, as to getting facts if not truth about any part of government.
The facts were these: one Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis. Four years later, Steinkauler returned to Germany, taking this child, and became domiciled at Weisbaden, where they continuously resided. When the son reached the age of twenty years, the German Government called upon him to report for military duty, and his father then invoked the intervention of the American Legation on the ground that his son was a native citizen of the United States. To an inquiry by our Minister, the father declined to give an assurance that the son would return to this country within a reasonable time. On reviewing the pertinent points in the case, including the Naturalization Treaty of 1868 with North Germany, 15 Stat. 615, the Attorney General reached the following conclusion:
Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States; but the father, in accordance with the treaty and the laws, has renounced his American citizenship and his American allegiance and has acquired for himself and his son German citizenship and the rights which it carries and he must take the burdens as well as the advantages. The son being domiciled with the father and subject to him under the law during his minority, and receiving the German protection where he has acquired nationality and declining to give any assurance of ever returning to the United States and claiming his American nationality by residence here, I am of the opinion that he cannot rightly invoke the aid of the Government of the United States to relieve him from military duty in Germany during his minority. But I am of opinion that, when he reaches the age of twenty-one years, he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father. This seems to me to be right reason, and I think it is law.
The decision to issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the U.S. State Department to a dual citizen who moves out of the U.S. and effectively renounces their U.S. citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence is discretionary. See SCOTUS opinion, Vance v. Terrazas (1980).
Congress wrote major changes to the INA after SCOTUS issued its opinion in Vance v. Terrazas. To date, most Secretaries of State decide to maintain a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard when it comes to issuing a CLN. For example, it’s unlikely SoS Hillary Clinton would issue a CLN to a 5-year-old dual citizen who moved out of the country with a parent who informed the State Department they did not plan to return to the United States. SoS Clinton maintain a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for issuing a CLN. In other words, Clinton had doubts the 5 year-old would never want to return to the U.S. and live as a U.S. Citizen.
On the other hand, SoS Dean Rusk maintained a lower standard of a preponderance of the evidence for issuing CLNs. A 5 year-old dual citizen who moves out of the U.S. with a parent who informs the State Department they have no intention of returning to the U.S. would be issued a CLN. SoS Vance continued SoS Rusk’s standard of “preponderance of the evidence” and it was upheld by SCOTUS in 1980.
When the minor who has been issued a CLN during their minority chooses to return to the U.S. and recapture their U.S. citizen, the State Department will honor the request within 6 months after reaching the age of majority (18 years-old for Obama, 21 years-old for Steinkauler). Obama moved back to the U.S. in 1971 and chose not to recapture his U.S. citizenship within 6 months of his 18th birthday. The age of majority was 18 during Obama’s lifetime. The age of majority was 21 in Steinkauler’s lifetime. Obama chose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen in 1983 at the age of 22.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.